REMOVAL: In the event of repeated absence without contact, or other serious misconduct or negligence, a Board member may be subject to removal. Before any other process occurs, the Board member in question will be personally contacted by the FPL to try to resolve the situation. If this contact does not successfully resolve the situation, the Board member in question may be removed by unanimous vote of the other members of the Board. Any resulting open seat will be filled through an interim appointment by the FPL, following consultation with the Board. The term of the interim appointment will be the remainder of the original term for that seat.

Adding this removal policy requires a 2/3 majority vote by the Board, and approval by the FPL

QUESTION: Does the Board agree with the proposed change?

VOTE: Shall the succession planning page be changed to add the proposed text?

DISCUSSION:

dgilmore - should be unanimous decision with all the board members + FPL?

stickster - FPL in some sense has the ultimate say here, since board membership is already subject to FPL approval

dgilmore - elected board membership should not be contingent upon FPL approval

mmcgrath: FPL acts as Red Hat liason; trust relationship is important for community

(discussion of evil FPL)

stickster - wants to make sure we don't avoid mentioning this in the policy, but doesn't want to blatantly give off the impression the process can or should be hijacked

the FPL is expected to honor community will

the FPL has ultimate responsibility/accountability to ensure Fedora Project works

the FPL has always had extensive power and responsibility, and the point is to use as little as possible

if someone is elected is removed for no good reason, it has the potential to hurt the community

FPL is accountable both to community, and to Red Hat, if he is kicking people out unwarranted and the community explodes -- say goodbye to that FPL

walters - should discuss how do we get to the point of wanting to remove someone, and how to avoid it (future item)

(discussion of possibility of criminal charges; don't need to explore right away probably, someone charged will likely not be able to attend board meetings)

if a vote the FPL would have to actively veto a removal

further ensures no renegade FPL action

(discussion on whether the vote should be unanimous)

walters - suggestion of recusing in the case of strong family/personal connection

stickster - we already have a policy of no abstention, but recusal would be okay in cases like this

members should almost expect to be removed if they are not showing up, not getting work done, not responding to mail, etc for a sustained period

spot - if two friends got elected, this could potentially throw a wrench into unanimity

dgilmore - should do 2/3s majority vote for removal, instead of unanimous

caillon - even in the two friends case, this could be vetoed by chair, but it could potentially lead to more chaos